Revolutionary Islam and Socialism: For a Global Axis of Resistance
Ali Reza Jalali
Even the most superficial analyst of international politics or the least prepared among experts in geopolitics will definitely realize that the world, especially in recent years, is moving towards a new direction. After the years of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the Americans thought to institute a "new world order", which was expressed openly in the early 90s of the twentieth century by George Bush, in the aftermath of the operation "Desert Fox", in which the U.S. and a "coalition of the allies", had driven the Iraqi army from Kuwait. That conflict was probably the first of the post-Cold War, and later, American intellectuals as F. Fukuyama and others, put on paper the program to be implemented over the next decades to ensure the world record for the U.S. even in the twenty-first century. This emerged most clearly with the work of the famous American neo-conservatives, by Samuel Huntington to the famous "Project for the New American Century", which we all heard about.
This plan of world hegemony, seen in the various regions of the globe, some forces engaged in a fierce resistance, from Latin America, to the Far East, through the Middle East, there are political parties, groups of armed resistance, and some cases of governments and states that, in various ways, and with various ideologies seek to maintain their independence from the political hegemony of the imperialist bourgeoisie and groups of dominoes, with specific support in some Western governments, and especially in the United States of America. This situation has made me reflect often on the goodness or otherwise of these analyzes tend to consider the contemporary world as a unipolar world. In fact, even after the fall of the USSR, the world has continued to be a world with different shades, and especially in recent years, the emerging multipolar character more vigorously.
But wanting to simplify the discussion, in my opinion, today we still have to deal with a bipolar world. There are still two sides fighting each other in various ways, maybe not exactly as it was between the two superpowers after the cold-war, as it was a "conventional" war between two powers and two states; USA and URSS had from a strategic point of view many similarities. The "new" bipolar world is not based on a conventional conflict. In fact, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, we have never seen a conflict classically understood, but only "unconventional" wars, between a formidable army (mostly NATO or USA) and armies or armed groups infinitely weaker and less armed. The war in Somalia, the two Balkan wars, the war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, not to mention the wars of Israel against Lebanon in 2006, or those against Gaza in 2008-2009 and the 2012 war (so-called 8 days war). And now the terrorist attack to Syria, still in progress. Those wars are all types of "unconventional" conflict of the post-Cold War era.
This new bipolar world, therefore, is not only a war of domination by U.S. imperialism and its close allies (Great Britain, France, Israel etc..) against other countries or against armed groups of various kinds, but it is also an ideological war, between the international bourgeois system and the "rebels" of the world. If the school of thought of the bourgeoisie remains liberal democracy, financial capitalism and the free market, the "rebels" of the world, have different values and different schools of thought, such as "socialism of the XXI century "(ALBA countries in Latin America), " Songun" socialism of North Korea, Chinese socialism, the" Arab socialism" of Syria, and other nations and groups of resistance in any case seem to embrace a variant of "socialism”. Among the "rebels" of the world also, there are exceptional cases, resistance groups or states, which go back to another school of thought, as some groups of the Lebanese resistance (Hezbollah and other groups), some groups Palestinian resistance and the Islamic Republic of Iran or other countries.
These states or groups say that adhere to political Islam, but what kind of Islam is this, that in fact is allied with "socialist" forces in a global battle against the military occupation of the world by American imperialism? The alliance between countries such as Venezuela, Iran, Syria or North Korea, is dictated, as some think, only by a common dislike of U.S. imperialism, or also have ideological common points? To answer these questions, I must say something about the ideas of Imam Khomeini, the ideologue, or rather, the "new" interpreter, of a form of Islam that have dimmed over the centuries. This type of Islam, is the ideological basis for the Lebanese resistance, for the Palestinian, the Syrian and the Iranian resistance. There is a conservative Islamic point of view, and this is alive even today, who want divide the world into two categories, on the model of the bipolar world. On the one side there is “dar al-harb”, the territory of war, the non-Muslim countries, and on the other hand there is “dar al-islam”, the territory of islam, the Islamic world. Imam Khomeini, with his “progressive” interpretation of Holy Quran and traditions, explained that the bipolar world is a world divided between oppressed people and oppressors (“mustaz’afin”-“mustakbirin”).
Based on this bipolar approach, the world is no longer a field of battle between Muslims and non-Muslims, but between oppressors and oppressed people. On this basis, a Muslim could easily be an oppressor and an oppressed a non-Muslim. In fact, if we analyze human history, we would realize that, the bipolar world is not characterized as a clash between races, ethnicities, religions and social classes, but there is an eternal confrontation between oppressed people and oppressors. An oppressed, could also be a rich, even if it seems paradoxical. An oppressed then, could belong to any geographical area in the world, could be a Christian, an atheist, etc.. On the other hand an oppressor could be a Muslim, Shia (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) or Sunni (Abdallah Bin Abd al-Aziz). For this reason that the Islamic revolutionary forces from Palestine to Iran, passing through Lebanon or Syria (those allied with the Syrian government) are allied and friendly with anti-imperialist front of the world, the so-called socialist countries, regardless of the variant of socialism to which they belong, from Latin America to Asia.
These are important issues that unite the global axis of resistance, and not just a common resentment against a colonial powers. The themes of social justice, not only within each country but also at regional and global levels, are topics that compete relations between the "rebels" of the world. When we hear the speeches of great leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad, we see a great similarity in the topics and themes, even with a common sensitivity. Obviously, this is found in the primordial nature of the human being, which tends in any case to Justice. The human being is engaged in a battle along the centuries, and it continues today, and will last until there will be injustice, because, where there is injustice there is an oppressed languishing under the evil, and where there is a situation like this there will always resistance.
This battle is not a simple geographical struggle between countries, it is the possibility of redemption for the oppressed people, for the inhabitants of the suburbs, for the “without shoes”, this is ultimately the Islam of the oppressed masses, Islam of the poor people; on the other hand we have the Islam of unscrupulous capitalists, Islam propagated by arrogant and bulling powers, an Islam that is indifferent to the suffering of others, or a militant Islam, that always take sides with the reactionary forces, as has happened in recent years in Syria and other Islamic countries. On the other hand, there are forces in the world that are not formally Muslim, but could easily be, and these, also from the Islamic perspective of the writer, are far better than many suspected Muslims.
Hasan Abbasi, Iranian intellectual and strategist, said in a speech: "Che Guevara was not Muslim, but his revolutionary man are better for God’s cause than thousands or millions of Muslims." Conclude this article by reminding everyone, Muslim or not, that our battle is the battle for the primordial nature of the human being, that is based on Justice, and in this type of commitment is not allowed any kind of sectarianism. We are the oppressed of the twenty-first century, and our historic mission, regardless of who is a Muslim or a member of a different school of thought, for example, socialist or otherwise, is to fight with our ideals, with our cultural propaganda against the oppressors and against the arrogant powers of the world, identified primarily in a handful of capitalists without ethics, which fill their pockets on the backs of people of the world. Imam Khomeini said: "The fight and the love of wealth, the momentum and the taste of luxury, the pursuit of the afterlife and the world are irreconcilable categories. Will remain with us until the very end only those who have suffered the pangs of misery, poverty, hunger, deprivation and oppression. The basis of every revolution is the rise of the destitute people. With all the tools at our disposal, we are required to comply with the principle of the protection of the oppressed."
Ali Reza Jalali
Even the most superficial analyst of international politics or the least prepared among experts in geopolitics will definitely realize that the world, especially in recent years, is moving towards a new direction. After the years of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet bloc, the Americans thought to institute a "new world order", which was expressed openly in the early 90s of the twentieth century by George Bush, in the aftermath of the operation "Desert Fox", in which the U.S. and a "coalition of the allies", had driven the Iraqi army from Kuwait. That conflict was probably the first of the post-Cold War, and later, American intellectuals as F. Fukuyama and others, put on paper the program to be implemented over the next decades to ensure the world record for the U.S. even in the twenty-first century. This emerged most clearly with the work of the famous American neo-conservatives, by Samuel Huntington to the famous "Project for the New American Century", which we all heard about.
This plan of world hegemony, seen in the various regions of the globe, some forces engaged in a fierce resistance, from Latin America, to the Far East, through the Middle East, there are political parties, groups of armed resistance, and some cases of governments and states that, in various ways, and with various ideologies seek to maintain their independence from the political hegemony of the imperialist bourgeoisie and groups of dominoes, with specific support in some Western governments, and especially in the United States of America. This situation has made me reflect often on the goodness or otherwise of these analyzes tend to consider the contemporary world as a unipolar world. In fact, even after the fall of the USSR, the world has continued to be a world with different shades, and especially in recent years, the emerging multipolar character more vigorously.
But wanting to simplify the discussion, in my opinion, today we still have to deal with a bipolar world. There are still two sides fighting each other in various ways, maybe not exactly as it was between the two superpowers after the cold-war, as it was a "conventional" war between two powers and two states; USA and URSS had from a strategic point of view many similarities. The "new" bipolar world is not based on a conventional conflict. In fact, after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, we have never seen a conflict classically understood, but only "unconventional" wars, between a formidable army (mostly NATO or USA) and armies or armed groups infinitely weaker and less armed. The war in Somalia, the two Balkan wars, the war against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, not to mention the wars of Israel against Lebanon in 2006, or those against Gaza in 2008-2009 and the 2012 war (so-called 8 days war). And now the terrorist attack to Syria, still in progress. Those wars are all types of "unconventional" conflict of the post-Cold War era.
This new bipolar world, therefore, is not only a war of domination by U.S. imperialism and its close allies (Great Britain, France, Israel etc..) against other countries or against armed groups of various kinds, but it is also an ideological war, between the international bourgeois system and the "rebels" of the world. If the school of thought of the bourgeoisie remains liberal democracy, financial capitalism and the free market, the "rebels" of the world, have different values and different schools of thought, such as "socialism of the XXI century "(ALBA countries in Latin America), " Songun" socialism of North Korea, Chinese socialism, the" Arab socialism" of Syria, and other nations and groups of resistance in any case seem to embrace a variant of "socialism”. Among the "rebels" of the world also, there are exceptional cases, resistance groups or states, which go back to another school of thought, as some groups of the Lebanese resistance (Hezbollah and other groups), some groups Palestinian resistance and the Islamic Republic of Iran or other countries.
These states or groups say that adhere to political Islam, but what kind of Islam is this, that in fact is allied with "socialist" forces in a global battle against the military occupation of the world by American imperialism? The alliance between countries such as Venezuela, Iran, Syria or North Korea, is dictated, as some think, only by a common dislike of U.S. imperialism, or also have ideological common points? To answer these questions, I must say something about the ideas of Imam Khomeini, the ideologue, or rather, the "new" interpreter, of a form of Islam that have dimmed over the centuries. This type of Islam, is the ideological basis for the Lebanese resistance, for the Palestinian, the Syrian and the Iranian resistance. There is a conservative Islamic point of view, and this is alive even today, who want divide the world into two categories, on the model of the bipolar world. On the one side there is “dar al-harb”, the territory of war, the non-Muslim countries, and on the other hand there is “dar al-islam”, the territory of islam, the Islamic world. Imam Khomeini, with his “progressive” interpretation of Holy Quran and traditions, explained that the bipolar world is a world divided between oppressed people and oppressors (“mustaz’afin”-“mustakbirin”).
Based on this bipolar approach, the world is no longer a field of battle between Muslims and non-Muslims, but between oppressors and oppressed people. On this basis, a Muslim could easily be an oppressor and an oppressed a non-Muslim. In fact, if we analyze human history, we would realize that, the bipolar world is not characterized as a clash between races, ethnicities, religions and social classes, but there is an eternal confrontation between oppressed people and oppressors. An oppressed, could also be a rich, even if it seems paradoxical. An oppressed then, could belong to any geographical area in the world, could be a Christian, an atheist, etc.. On the other hand an oppressor could be a Muslim, Shia (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi) or Sunni (Abdallah Bin Abd al-Aziz). For this reason that the Islamic revolutionary forces from Palestine to Iran, passing through Lebanon or Syria (those allied with the Syrian government) are allied and friendly with anti-imperialist front of the world, the so-called socialist countries, regardless of the variant of socialism to which they belong, from Latin America to Asia.
These are important issues that unite the global axis of resistance, and not just a common resentment against a colonial powers. The themes of social justice, not only within each country but also at regional and global levels, are topics that compete relations between the "rebels" of the world. When we hear the speeches of great leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Ahmadinejad, we see a great similarity in the topics and themes, even with a common sensitivity. Obviously, this is found in the primordial nature of the human being, which tends in any case to Justice. The human being is engaged in a battle along the centuries, and it continues today, and will last until there will be injustice, because, where there is injustice there is an oppressed languishing under the evil, and where there is a situation like this there will always resistance.
This battle is not a simple geographical struggle between countries, it is the possibility of redemption for the oppressed people, for the inhabitants of the suburbs, for the “without shoes”, this is ultimately the Islam of the oppressed masses, Islam of the poor people; on the other hand we have the Islam of unscrupulous capitalists, Islam propagated by arrogant and bulling powers, an Islam that is indifferent to the suffering of others, or a militant Islam, that always take sides with the reactionary forces, as has happened in recent years in Syria and other Islamic countries. On the other hand, there are forces in the world that are not formally Muslim, but could easily be, and these, also from the Islamic perspective of the writer, are far better than many suspected Muslims.
Hasan Abbasi, Iranian intellectual and strategist, said in a speech: "Che Guevara was not Muslim, but his revolutionary man are better for God’s cause than thousands or millions of Muslims." Conclude this article by reminding everyone, Muslim or not, that our battle is the battle for the primordial nature of the human being, that is based on Justice, and in this type of commitment is not allowed any kind of sectarianism. We are the oppressed of the twenty-first century, and our historic mission, regardless of who is a Muslim or a member of a different school of thought, for example, socialist or otherwise, is to fight with our ideals, with our cultural propaganda against the oppressors and against the arrogant powers of the world, identified primarily in a handful of capitalists without ethics, which fill their pockets on the backs of people of the world. Imam Khomeini said: "The fight and the love of wealth, the momentum and the taste of luxury, the pursuit of the afterlife and the world are irreconcilable categories. Will remain with us until the very end only those who have suffered the pangs of misery, poverty, hunger, deprivation and oppression. The basis of every revolution is the rise of the destitute people. With all the tools at our disposal, we are required to comply with the principle of the protection of the oppressed."
Commenti
Posta un commento